Silaob Vol. 1, No.

1, October 2019

STUDENTS’ PERCEIVED ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND SELF-EFFICACY

OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN DAVAO CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

Gary A. Barela Juliana Amor P. Bacaca Steven Lawrence P. Santa Ana

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Kesea O. Cajes Ellyza F. Salvador Carl Angelo N. Dumapig

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Janna Fe C. Bartolome Ronald O. Soberano Stephen Glenn C. Marcellones

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Students’ perceived English language proficiency and self-efficacy is a long living

issue in the academic setting. Thus, this study aims to measure the significant
difference of the students’ perceived English language proficiency and self-efficacy
when grouped according to grade level, track/strand and sex. It also aims to
measure if significant relationship between students’ perceived English language
proficiency and self-efficacy exists. This study used a non-experimental research
design utilizing comparative and correlational analyses. Stratified random sampling
technique was used to determine the respondents of the study. Results revealed that
there was no significant difference in the perceived English language proficiency of
the students when grouped according to their grade level, track/strand and sex.
Moreover, no significant difference was found in the self-efficacy of the students
when grouped according to grade level, track/strand and sex. However, there is a
statistically strong significant correlation between the students’ perceived English
language proficiency and self-efficacy. Future researchers may increase the number
of sample size to greater than fifty. Keywords: Quantitative, perceived English
language proficiency, self-efficacy, non-experimental, stratified random sampling,
Philippines

1. Introduction
Self-efficacy and English proficiency play a major role in how goals and challenges are approached.
However, not everyone possesses high level of perceived English language proficiency and self-
efficacy that often leads students to failure. Teachers are often bewildered by how and why some
students are eager to learn and willing to tackle new challenges while others seem uninterested or
unmotivated no matter how hard teachers try (Bruning, Schraw & Norby, 2011).

Similar study conducted by Tseng (2013) in Taiwan confirms that there is no significant relationship
between the students’ perceived level of English language proficiency and self-efficacy. Even when
students did not perform well in English, they still believed they had the ability to learn it well.
Consequently, students who perceived that they have low level of English proficiency, they still have
positive outlook that they can do tasks well.

In the Philippines, a study conducted by Digap (2016) also affirms that there is a positive relationship
between English proficiency and self-efficacy. The results revealed that the more proficient the
student in the English language is, the more the student shall possess higher level of self-efficacy.

Several studies have been conducted to measure the relationship between English language
proficiency and self-efficacy from the different places in the world but there are no studies have been
found on the local area. Further, similar studies do not actually specify what kind of English language

1
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

skills they are trying to measure. Studies conducted by Tseng (2013) in global setting and Digap
(2016) in the national context used college students which serve as the gap of the study. The aim of
the study is to measure the relationship between the senior high school students’ perceived English
language proficiency specifically in listening skill, reading skill, writing skill and speaking skill and
self-efficacy.

2. Theoretical Framework
Semantic-Cognitive Theory (Skinner, 1954). The theory of language development emphasizes that
language learning, cognition and self-efficacy are interrelated. Children demonstrate certain cognitive
abilities as a corresponding language behavior emerges. (Bloom & Lahey, 1978). This theory is
appropriate in the study since it gives ideas on how the students will behave in accordance with their
abilities and skills in the English language especially in communication and grammar as it is the most
important skill in determining the proficiency of the student in the English language.

Self-efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1999). Self-efficacy theory explains and predicts that psychological
changes achieved by different modes of treatment. Perceived self- efficacy describes a cognitive
mechanism presumed to underline changes that occur in all persons. It suggests that a person becomes
self-efficient if he/she perceives high self-esteem (Bandura, 1977). This theory is appropriate in the
study as it gives an overview on how self-efficacy affects the well-being of the students especially in
recognizing their roles in life by achieving their specific goals in their lives.

3. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 shows the interaction of the independent variable and dependent variables in the study. The
independent variable is the demographic profile of the students which composed of track/strand, sex
and grade level. The dependent variables in the study are the perceived English language proficiency
and self-efficacy of the students which shows the relationship between the two variables.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Displaying the Independent and Dependent Variable.

Dependent Variable
Perceived English Language
Proficiency
Independent Variable a. Listening
Demographic Profile of the Students b. Reading
c. Writing
a. Track/Strand d. Speaking
\
b. Sex
c. Grade Level
Self-Efficacy

4. Method
4.1 Research Design
This study used non-experimental research design utilizing a comparative and correlational analyses.
Non-experimental research refers to a study when a researcher cannot control, manipulate or alter the
predictor variable or subjects, but instead, relies on interpretation, observation or interactions to come
to a conclusion (Johnson, 2011). In addition, comparative research refers to the research methodology
in the social sciences that aims to make comparisons across different variables. According to Adi
Bhat (2019) correlational research refers to a type of non-experimental research method, in which a
researcher measures two variables, understands and assess the statistical relationship between them

2
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

with no influence from any extraneous variable and determines whether or not the two variables are
correlated.

4.2 Respondents
The respondents of this study were senior high school students in Davao City National High School.
It aimed to measure if there is significant difference in the perceived English language proficiency
and self-efficacy when grouped according to their track/strand, sex and grade level. Moreover, it
aimed to measure if significant relationship is existent.

Majority of the respondents came from Technical, Vocational and Livelihood track (34%) followed
by the Accountancy, Business and Management strand (30%) and Humanities and Social Sciences
(18%). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics strand garnered fourteen percent of the
respondents (14%) and lastly, Arts and Design track garnered four percent (4%) of the total
respondents.

This study utilized the National Education Association (NEA) formula since it is the most efficient
formula to determine the sample size (Morgan, 2018). There were 327 samples formulated. However,
due to the financial strain of the student-researchers and limited time given to the proponents, the
students formulated and innovated sample size of fifty (50) to ensure efficiency and prompt
submission of the output.

4.3. Research Instruments

Self-Assessment for Perceived English Language Proficiency adapted from Ekola (2013) was used to
measure the students’ perceived English language proficiency with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .866 based
on standardized items. It consists of twenty-four (24) statements divided into four (4) indicators
namely: Listening, reading, speaking and writing with 6 statements each index. The following scale
was used for the analysis and interpretation of the test results retrieved from Sijali (2016):

Ordered Intervals in the Level of Perceived English Language Proficiency

Range of Means Descriptive Equivalents Interpretation
0-1.3 Basic Students can use the English language at
basic level; their English language is not yet
fully developed.
1.4-2.7 Independent Students can communicate and express
thoughts in English with average fluency and
eloquence.
2.8-4.0 Proficient Students can communicate using advanced
English language such as using idiomatic
expressions and metaphors; can use English
flexibly and effectively for social and
academic purposes.

Subsequently, to measure the self-efficacy of the students, the researchers used the Self-Efficacy
Formative Questionnaire adapted from Gaumer Erickson and Noonan (2018) with a Cronbach’s
Alpha of .829 based on standardized items. The questionnaire consists of thirteen (13) statements
focusing on one agenda which aims to measure the level of effectiveness of the students. The
following scale was used for the analysis and in interpretation for the test results retrieved from
Akhtar (2008):
3
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

Ordered Intervals in the Level of Students’ Self-Efficacy

Range of Means Descriptive Equivalents Interpretation
0-1.6 Low Students are less resilient and less likely to
bounce back; cannot deal personal problems
efficiently.
1.7-3.3 Intermediate Students are resilient and confident that they
can achieve their goal with hard work and
perseverance.
3.4-5 High Students are much resilient and have high
aspirations and commitments in achieving
their goal.

Moreover, the table below shows the correlation values and their interpretation in order to accurately
determine the level of relationship between the perceived English language proficiency and self-
efficacy.
Correlation Values Interpretation
0.00 - ± 0.09 No correlation
± 0.1 - ±0.29 Small correlation
±0.3 - ±0.49 Medium Correlation
±0.5 – 1.0 Strong Correlation

5. Data Gathering Procedure

Seeking Permission from the School Heads to Conduct the Study. The researchers asked approval
from the department head through writing a formal letter to conduct the study.

Seeking Permission from the Respondents to Conduct the Study. The researchers asked
permission from the potential respondents by providing them an informed consent which states the
benefits they may take in responding the questionnaire as well as their potential risks and rights to
withdraw and refuse to participate.

Administering the Questionnaire. The researchers only administered the questionnaires to students
with free time to avoid distraction of classes. Upon administering the survey questionnaire, a pencil
and a pen were handed to them for their convenience. The researchers did not set a time allotment in
answering the questionnaire for them to clearly read and understand each statement.

Retrieving the Questionnaire. The researchers patiently wait for the survey questionnaires to be
fully responded. Moreover, one member from the research team collected all the questionnaires after
the respondents answered the survey.

Scoring, Encoding and Tallying the Answers. The researchers scored the questionnaire using the
Likert scale provided in the questionnaire. One member from the research team tallied the raw scores
in spreadsheet software.

Tabulating the Results. The responses were tabulated using Microsoft Excel 2019. Variables were
placed in the row while the responses in each variable were placed in the column. The researchers
used two separate sheets for each questionnaire.

4
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

6. Data Analysis
Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used by the student-researchers in
analyzing the data in order to determine if significant difference is existent in the perceived English
language proficiency and self-efficacy when grouped according to demographics and if significant
relationship is existent.

Frequency Distribution and Percentage. It was used to show the frequency distribution and
percentage of the data in track/strand, sex and grade level.

Mean and Standard Deviation. It was used to determine the level of perceived English language
proficiency and self-efficacy of the students. Moreover, it was used to determine whether or not the
data is evenly and fairly distributed.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This tool was used to measure the difference in the perceived
English language proficiency and self-efficacy when grouped according to track/strand.

Independent Samples T-test. This tool was used to measure the difference in the perceived English
language proficiency and self-efficacy when grouped according to sex and grade level.

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (Pearson r). This tool was used to measure the
relationship between and among variables which are the perceived English language proficiency and
self-efficacy of the students which are based on the inferential questions in this study.

7. Results and Discussion

7.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Table 1. Distribution of the Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Variable Group Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
1.1Strand/Track STEM 7 14%
HUMSS 9 18%
TVL 17 34%
ABM 15 30%
Arts and Design 2 4%
1.2 Sex Male 25 50%
Female 25 50%
1.3 Grade Level 11 26 52%
12 24 48%
Technical, Vocational and Livelihood track garner thirty-four percent (34%) of the respondents while,
Humanities and Social Sciences has eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents. On the other hand,
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics has fourteen percent (14%) accumulated
respondents. Further, Accountancy and Business Management acquire thirty percent (30%) of the
respondents. Lastly, Arts and Design track has four percent (4%) of the respondents. In terms of sex,
both male and female have fifty percent (50%) accumulated respondents. Pertaining to grade level,
Grade 11 students garner fifty-two percent (52%) of the respondents while there are forty-eight
percent (48%) accumulated respondents in Grade 12.

5
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

7.2 Perceived English Language Proficiency of the Students

Table 2.1. Level of Perceived English Language Proficiency of the Students in terms
of Listening
Statements Mean SD Description
1. Understanding familiar words and very basic 3.50 .61 Proficient
phrases concerning oneself, family and
immediate concrete surroundings when people
speak slowly and clearly.
2. Catching the main point in short, clear, simple 3.16 .58 Proficient
messages and announcements.
3. Understanding the main points of clear standard 3.10 .68 Proficient
speech on familiar matters regularly
encountered in work, school and leisure.
4. Understanding extended speech and lectures 3.00 .67 Proficient
and follow even complex lines of argument
provided the topic is reasonably familiar.
5. Understanding extended speech even when it is 2.66 .66 Independent
not clearly structured and when relationships
are only implied and not signaled explicitly.
6. Having no difficulty in understanding any kind 2.72 .74 Independent
of spoken language, whether live or broadcast,
even when delivered at fast native speed
provided.
Category Mean 3.02 .66 Proficient
0-1.3= Basic 1.4-2.7= Independent 2.8-4.0= Proficient
Table 1 shows that understanding familiar words and very basic phrases concerning oneself, family
and immediate concrete surroundings when people speak slowly and clearly has the highest mean
with a mean value of 3.50. The table implies that the respondents can communicate in situations, and
can use simple language to communicate feelings, opinions, plans and experiences. The result shows
that the respondents have no difficulties in listening and understanding familiar words and basic
phrases. Davies (2003) stated that students, later in their senior years tends to become proficient in
listening since listening is process of understanding and sharing information which is mostly evident
in the academic setting.

Table 2.2.Level of Perceived English Language Proficiency of the Students in terms of Reading
Statement Mean SD Description
7. Understanding familiar names, words and very 3.24 0.61 Proficient
simple sentences on notices and posters or in
catalogues.
8. Finding specific, predictable information in simple 3.14 0.73 Proficient
everyday material such as advertisements,
prospectuses, menus and timetables and can
understand short simple personal letters.
9. Understanding texts that consist mainly of high 2.96 0.70 Proficient
frequency every day or job-related language.
10. Reading articles and reports concerned with 3.18 0.75 Proficient
contemporary problems in which the writers adopt
particular attitudes or viewpoints. Can understand
contemporary literary prose.

6
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

11. Understanding long and complex factual and 2.90 0.71 Proficient
literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style.
12. Reading with ease virtually in all forms of the 3.10 0.76 Proficient
written language, including abstract, structurally
or linguistically complex texts such as manuals,
specialized articles and literary works.
Category Mean 3.08 0.71 Proficient
0-1.3= Basic 1.4-2.7= Independent 2.8-4.0= Proficient
Table 2.2. shows that understanding familiar names, words and very simple sentences on notices and
posters or in catalogues has the highest mean with a mean value of 3.24. This result suggests that the
respondents can use English flexibly and effectively for social and academic purposes in simple
structures that the students typically use in their everyday life. The result shows that reading in all
forms of the written simple English language is easy for the respondents. However, students have
struggles in understanding long and complex factual and literary texts and cannot appreciate
distinction of styles since students may not be that interested in reading factual texts. Davies (2003)
stated that students in their later years tend to look for texts that entertain them. However, students’
interest in reading is high.

Table 2.3. Level of Perceived English Language Proficiency of the Students in terms
of Speaking
Statement Mean SD Description
13. Interacting in a simple way provided the other 3.20 0.76 Proficient
person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things
at a slower rate of speech and help them
formulate what they trying to say.
14. Handling very short social exchanges, even 3.02 0.77 Proficient
though one cannot usually understand enough
to keep the conversation going.
15. Entering unprepared conversation on topics 3.08 0.72 Proficient
that are familiar, of personal interest or
pertinent to everyday life.
16. Interacting with degree of fluency and 2.80 0.78 Proficient
spontaneity that makes regular interaction with
native speakers quite possible.
17. Using the language flexibly and effectively for 2.74 0.69 Intermediate
social and professional purposes. Formulating
ideas and opinions with precision and relate to
contributions skillfully to those of other
speakers.
18. Expressing oneself fluently and convey finer 2.82 0.90 Intermediate
shades of meaning precisely. Having problem
can backtrack and restructure around the
difficulty so smoothly that other people are
hardly aware of it.
Category Mean 2.94 0.77 Proficient
0-1.3= Basic 1.4-2.7= Independent 2.8-4.0= Proficient
Table 2.3 revealed that interacting in a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or
rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help them formulate what they are trying to say has the
highest mean with a mean value of 3.20. This implies that the respondents, when it comes to

7
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

speaking, are proficient and can interact with other people with no difficulty. Thus, students can
deliver speeches with ease in the simplest form. Further, students can speak the language in slower
rate, they cannot speak the language properly straight and in fast manner. The result reveals that
students have difficulty in using the language with flexibility for social and professional purposes.
Students use the English language for academic purposes only and do not apply as a medium of
communication when engaging with other people. To add, students also have difficulty in formulating
ideas and opinions with precision. Marrow (2002) stated that the level of English language
proficiency of the students in terms of speaking is low especially when the person uses his/her local
language in interacting with other people.

Table 2.4. Level of Perceived English Language Proficiency of the Students in terms of Writing
Statement Mean SD Description
19. Writing short, simple postcard, for example, 3.32 0.77 Proficient
sending holiday greetings.
20. Writing very simple personal letter, for example, 3.44 0.73 Proficient
thanking someone for something.
21. Writing simple connected text on topics which 3.30 0.58 Proficient
are familiar or of personal interest.
22. Writing an essay or report, passing on 3.04 0.80 Proficient
information or giving reasons in support of or
against a particular point of view.
23. Expressing oneself in clear, well-structured text, 3.06 0.82 Proficient
expressing points of view at some length.
24. Writing clear, smoothly flowing text in an 2.94 0.84 Proficient
appropriate style. Writing complex letters, reports
or articles which present a case with an effective
logical structure which helps the recipient to
notice and remember significant points.
Category Mean 3.18 0.76 Proficient
0-1.3= Basic 1.4-2.7= Independent 2.8-4.0= Proficient
Table 2.4 shows that writing very simple personal letter has the highest mean with a mean value of
3.44. This suggests that students can write letters in simple, casual and informal way. However,
students find difficulties in writing formal, clear and smooth-flowing texts. Moreover, students find
struggles in writing especially when the text is academic with restricted formats and styles. Meyers
(2005) stated that writing formal and academic texts are not favorable by students.

Table 2.5. The Overall Level of Students’ Perceived English Language Proficiency
English Language Proficiency Skills Mean SD Description
Listening 3.02 0.66 Proficient
Reading 3.08 0.71 Proficient
Speaking 2.94 0.77 Proficient
Writing 3.18 0.76 Proficient
Overall Mean 3.06 0.73 Proficient
Table 2.5 shows that the overall mean of the perceived English language proficiency skills is 3.06
interpreted as proficient. This implies that the students’ perceived English language proficiency is
high. Students can listen, read, write and speak efficiently using the language with no difficulty.
Further, the results suggest that students can understand and use the English language with
proficiency. This implication is supported by Cook (2006) as cited in Haber (2019) language is at the
center of human life. Language is used for planning one’s life and remembering past; people

8
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

exchange ideas and experiences through language. According to Pinker (2015) children are constantly
hearing and processing speech, so their brains are able to analyze grammatical structure of the
sentences and parse it into basic rules about the language. Thus, the students during their senior years
acquire more knowledge about proper usage of the language. Hence, students’ language proficiency
becomes high.

7.3. Self-Efficacy of the Students

Table 3. The Level of Self-efficacy of the Students
Statements Mean SD Description
1. Learning what is being taught in class this 3.34 0.59 Intermediate
year.
2. Figuring out anything when trying hard 3.48 0.65 High
enough.
3. By practicing every day, about any skills 3.44 0.64 High
are developed.
4. Deciding to accomplish something is 3.36 0.66 Intermediate
important, trying to accomplish it even it is
hard.
5. Having confidence to achieve goals. 3.22 0.56 Intermediate
6. When struggling to accomplish something 3.34 0.68 Intermediate
difficult, focusing on the progress instead
of feeling discouraged is the best thing to
do.
7. Succeeding in whatever career path one 3.28 0.66 Intermediate
may choose.
8. Succeeding in whatever college major one 3.48 0.73 High
may choose.
9. Believing hard work pays off. 3.44 0.54 High
10. Ability grows with effort. 3.42 0.68 High
11. Believing that the brain can be developed 3.42 0.61 High
like muscle.
12. Thinking that no matter who you are, you 3.52 0.58 High
can significantly change one’s level of
talent.
13. Changing the basic level of ability 3.34 0.75 High
considerably.
Overall Mean 3.40 0.64 High
0-1.6= Low 1.7-3.3= Intermediate 3.4-5= High
Table 3 shows that the statement “thinking no matter who the person is, one can significantly change
one’s level of talent” obtains the highest mean with a mean value of 3.54. The result reveals that
students are resilient and thinks that everyone can improve and develop their innate talents. The result
indicates that the overall mean is high, (M= 3.40, SD= 0.64). This suggests that learners portrayed
their high level of self-efficacy students are very optimistic that they tend to have a positive outlook
that they can achieve their goals. Further, students believe that personality matters when developing
and improving their talents. The self-efficacy component of Bandura’s social-cognitive theory has
had a profound impact on the study of motivation and achievement in academic settings. Self-efficacy
is a domain-specific belief in one’s ability to successfully perform a task, which influences
engagement in and successful completion of a task (Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, McKim, &
Zumbrunn, 2013; Klassen, 2002; Pajares, 2003).

9
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

7.4 Perceived English Language Proficiency According to Demographic Profile

Table 4.1. Test of Difference in Perceived English Language Proficiency
According to Grade Level
Perceived English Sig (2- Mean
Language Proficiency t df tailed) Difference Remarks
Listening
Grade 11 -.02 48 0.98 -.00 Not Significant
Grade 12
Reading
Grade 11 -.02 48 0.98 -.00 Not Significant
Grade 12
Speaking
Grade 11 -.01 48 0.99 -.00 Not Significant
Grade 12
Writing
Grade 11 0.62 48 0.54 0.01 Not Significant
Grade12
equal variances not assumed
Table 4.1 presents the test of difference between the perceived English language proficiency and
Grade level of the respondents. The result reveals that there is no significant difference between the
two variables, t(48)= 0.14, p=0.87. The result infers that the grade level of the respondents does not
affect their perceived English language proficiency. Therefore, regardless of grade level, students
perceive that their proficiency in the English language is high. Veenman et al. (2006) carried out an
observational study of primary reading and discovered that there was no significant difference in the
perceived English language proficiency and grade level of the respondents. Hence, the decision is to
accept the null hypothesis.

Table 4.2 ANOVA Results in the Perceived English Language Proficiency and Track/Strand
Perceived English Language Proficiency Mean SD f-value p-value
LISTENING
HUMSS 3.24 0.37 1.28 .29
STEM 3.05 0.38
ABM 2.93 0.26
TVL 3.02 0.45
ARTS & DESIGN 2.75 0.12
READING
HUMSS 3.38 0.33 1.63 .18
STEM 3.11 0.52
ABM 2.97 0.23
TVL 3.12 0.53
ARTS & DESIGN 2.83 0.00
SPEAKING
HUMSS 3.27 0.35 1.59 .19
STEM 2.88 0.45
ABM 2.82 0.18
TVL 2.91 0.37
ARTS & DESIGN 2.83 0.24

10
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

WRITING
HUMSS 3.72 0.29 3.29 0.07
STEM 3.21 0.54
ABM 3.08 0.49
TVL 3.04 0.61
ARTS & DESIGN 2.83 0.24
Table 4.2 clearly shows that there is no significant difference in the perceived English language
proficiency and track/strand, f(2,47)= 1.95, p=.18. The table presents that the respondents from
Humanities and Social Sciences students dominate the results from the different groups with a mean
value of 3.24 for listening, 3.38 for reading, 3.27 for speaking and 3.72 for writing. This implies that
regardless of the track/strand chosen by the respondents, students’ level of their perceived English
language proficiency is high. Moreover, respondents from Humanities and Social Sciences shows that
they have higher level of proficiency in English language since their characteristic in terms of English
language skills is already embedded and enhanced on the strand they have selected. Related studies
conducted by Lasaten (2016) revealed that there was no significant difference in the level of English
language proficiency when grouped according to track/strand. Hence, the decision is to accept the
null hypothesis.

Table 4.3 Test of Difference in Perceived English Language Proficiency According to Sex
Perceived English Sig (2- Mean
Language Proficiency t df tailed) Difference Remarks
Listening
Male 0.13 48 0.91 0.02 Not Significant
Female
Reading
Male 0.28 48 0.79 0.03 Not Significant
Female
Speaking
Male 0.35 48 0.73 0.05 Not Significant
Female
Writing
Male 0.38 48 0.71 0.06 Not Significant
Female
equal variances not assumed
Table 4.3 shows that there is no significant difference in the perceived English language proficiency
and sex, t(48)= 0.28, p= 0.78. This implies that regardless of sex, the level of perceived English
language proficiency when grouped according sex is high. Sijali (2016) stated there is no significant
difference between female and male students in their English language proficiency level. Similar
study conducted by Lin (2010) asserted that the level of English language proficiency had no
significant difference between male and female groups. Hence, the decision is to accept the null
hypothesis.

7.5 Self-Efficacy According to Demographic Profile

Table 5.1Test of Difference in Self- Efficacy According to Grade Level
Self- Efficacy T df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Remarks
Grade Level
Grade 11 0.87 48 0.53 .01 Not Significant
Grade 12
11
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

equal variances not assumed

Table 5.1 presents the test of difference between the perceived English language proficiency and
grade level of the respondents. The results revealed that there is no significant difference in self-
efficacy and grade level, t(48)= .87, p= .53. This implies that grade level does not determine the level
of the self- efficacy of the students. Whatever the grade level of the students are, students claim that
they have high level of self-efficacy. Luvrakas (2008) affirmed that there is no significant difference
in the self-efficacy of the students when grouped according to grade level. Hence, the decision is to
accept the null hypothesis.

Table 5.2 Test of Difference in Self-Efficacy According to Track/Strand

Self-Efficacy Mean SD f-value p-value
Track/Strand
HUMSS 3.50 0.33 1.26 0.30
STEM 3.55 0.43
ABM 3.24 0.22
TVL 3.38 0.45
ARTS & DESIGN 3.46 0.00
equal variances not assumed
Table 5.2 shows that there is no significant difference in self-efficacy and track/strand, f(2, 47)= 1.26,
p=0.30. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics strand has the highest mean with a mean
value of 3.55. On the other hand, the Accountancy, Business and Management strand has the lowest
mean with a mean value of 3.24. The results imply that the STEM students are more efficient and can
work independently with positive outlook with the ability to decide that they are more confident to
reach their goals and can finish tasks efficiently. Brown (2013) affirmed that there is no significant
difference in the level of self-efficacy when grouped according to track/strand. Hence, the decision is
to accept the null hypothesis.

Table 5.3 Test of Difference in Self-Efficacy According to Sex

Self-Efficacy t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Remarks
Sex
Male 0.21 48 0.84 0.02 Not Significant
Female
equal variances not assumed
Table 5.3 presents the difference in the self-efficacy of male and female respondents. The result
reveals that there is no significant difference in the level of self-efficacy of the students when grouped
according to sex, t(48)= .21, p= .838. This implies that regardless of sex, the level of self-efficacy of
the respondents is high. Students are able to perform any tasks with positive attitude and believe they
can achieve their goals. A study conducted by Saha et. al. (2013) revealed that self-efficacy has no
significant difference when grouped according to sex. Thus, the decision is to accept the null
hypothesis.

7.6 The Relationship Between Students’ Perceived English Language Proficiency and Self-
Efficacy
Table 6. Test of Relationship Between Students’ Perceived English Language Proficiency
and Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy
N r p-value Remarks
Perceived English 50 0.53 .00 Significant
Language Proficiency

12
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

Table 6 presents the relationship between the students’ perceived English language proficiency and
self-efficacy. The students’ perceived level of English language proficiency and self-efficacy are
statistically significantly strongly correlated, r(48) = .53, p=.00. This implies that students have high
level of perceived English language proficiency and self-efficacy. The results revealed that students
who perceive high level of English language proficiency also have high level of self-efficacy. Senior
High School students of Davao City National High School have high level of perception with regards
to their proficiency in the English language. Thus, students possess positive attitudes towards dealing
with problems by solving it with independence and confidence. Ayoobiyan and Soleimani (2015)
affirmed that there is significant relationship between English language proficiency and self-efficacy.
Hence, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

8. Limitations
This study is constrained with financial resources, context and time allotment given to the student-
researchers. Thus, an innovated sample size of fifty (50) was formulated within Davao City National
High School. The results are not intended to generalize any population given that the sample size is
insufficient.

9. Conclusion
This section provides the conclusions for each problem from the data gathered.
1. TVL track has the highest number of respondents while there is an equal distribution of
samples in terms of sex, Moreover, Grade 11 has higher number of respondents than the
Grade 12 respondents.
2. The level of perceived English language proficiency of the students is proficient. This
suggests that students have high level of perception on how well they can perform using the
English language.
3. The level of self-efficacy of the students is high. This suggests that students are confident that
they can achieve their goals.
4. There is no significant difference in the perceived English language proficiency and grade
level, track/strand and sex of the students. This implies that regardless of the students’ grade
level, track/strand and sex, the level of students’ perceived English language proficiency is
high.
5. There is no significant difference in the self-efficacy and grade level, track/strand and sex of
the students. This implies that regardless of the students’ grade level, track/strand and sex, the
level of their self-efficacy is high.
6. Students’ perceived English language proficiency and self-efficacy are statistically
significantly strongly correlated. This implies that if the perceived English language
proficiency of the student increases, the level of self-efficacy also increases. Conversely, if
self-efficacy increases, the perceived English language proficiency of the students also
increases.

10. Recommendations
This section provides the recommendations for the future researchers to further investigate similar
study. Moreover, recommendations based on findings are also presented hereunder.
1. The teachers and administration may develop programs such as read-and tell or
extemporaneous speaking that may enhance and reinforce the English-speaking skills of the
senior high school students.
2. Guidance counselors may develop programs such as leadership seminar-workshop open for
all senior high school students to reinforce students’ self-confidence.
3. English teachers may modify and improve their teaching skills in the English language for
which, in return, students may also improve their self-efficacy level.

13
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

4. Future researchers may increase the number of sample size to greater than fifty (50) to
increase the reliability of findings.

References
Adi Baht. (2019). Strong correlation of wild barley (Hordeumspontaneum) population structure with
temperature and precipitation variation. Molecular Ecology, 18(7), 1523-1536
Bandura, A. (1997). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares& T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-
efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders.
Brown, P. (2013). Augustine of Hippo: a biography. Univ of California Press.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational psychologist, 35(1), 25-
37.
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., &Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining
dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25.
Cook, F. (2006). An analysis of the relationships between teacher efficacy, teacher self-esteem and
orientations to seeking help. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(5),
707-716
Davies, R. B. (2003). Tax treaties, renegotiations, and foreign direct investment. Economic Analysis
and Policy, 33(2), 251-273.
Digap, A. L. C. (2016). Self-Efficacy, English Proficiency and Effectiveness of Teachers of English
in the Secondary Schools. SMCC Higher Education Research Journal, 2, 72-88.
Ekola, T. (2016). English language needs and language proficiency of academic professionals as a
basis for developing language training: a case study of environmental researchers.
Guven, D. (2013). The development of academic self-efficacy. In Development of achievement
motivation (pp. 15-31). Academic Press.
Isphording, L. (2015). Relationship between self-efficacy, academic achievement and gender in
analytical chemistry at Debre Markos College of teacher education. African Journal of
Chemical Education, 3(1), 3-28.
Lasaten, S. (2016). English language proficiency and academic performance of Philippine science
high school students. International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, 2(2), 44-
49.
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications.
Marrow, H. B. (2002). Who are the other Latinos, and why. The Other Latinos: Central and South
Americans in the United States, 20, 39.
Meyers, M. A., Lin, A. Y. M., Chen, P. Y., &Muyco, J. (2005). Mechanical strength of abalone nacre:
role of the soft organic layer. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials,
1(1), 76-85
Pinker, J. D. (2015). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
Saha, D., Sahu, S., & Verma, D. C. (2013). U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office.
Sijali, K. K., &Khanal, R. N. (2016). Learners’ Autonomy in Learning English in Context of Higher
Secondary Level Education in Nepal. Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow
Volume 16: 5 May 2016 ISSN 1930-2940, 222.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Cambridge, Mass, USA, 99,
113.
Skinner, R. (1954). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding
classroom discourse. Discourse processes, 35(2), 135-198.
Soleiman, D. (2015). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic
investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

14
Silaob Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2019

Tseng, M. L. (2013). Modeling sustainable production indicators with linguistic preferences. Journal
of cleaner production, 40, 46-56.
Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., &Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning:
Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1(1), 3-14.

15